Low Back PainPhase 3NCT00662558
A Six Week Study Of The Pain Relieving Effects Of Celecoxib 200 Mg Twice Daily Compared To Tramadol 50 Mg Four Times Daily In Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain
A Phase 3 study testing celecoxib and tramadol HCL in people with Low Back Pain, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 60 sites in United States.
Trial summary
To compare the analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and tramadol in subjects with Chronic Low Back Pain measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain) at Week 6 Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- celecoxib and tramadol HCL
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 802 participants
- Where
- 60 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Jan 2008to Sep 2008
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The subject presents with duration of chronic low back pain of > 3 months requiring regular use of analgesics (> 4 days/week), except for acetaminophen which cannot have been the sole analgesic used
Who cannot join
- The subject has chronic low back pain, which is neurologic in etiology (i.e., radiculopathy, neuropathy, myelopathy)
Trial locations and contacts
60 sites in 1 country.
60 sites in 1 country
United States60 sites
Pfizer Investigational Site
Anaheim, California, 92801
Pfizer Investigational Site
Austin, Texas, 78705
Pfizer Investigational Site
Baltimore, Maryland, 21218
Pfizer Investigational Site
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70809
Pfizer Investigational Site
Beaumont, Texas, 77701
Pfizer Investigational Site
Beaumont, Texas, 77706
Pfizer Investigational Site
Birmingham, Alabama, 35126
Pfizer Investigational Site
Birmingham, Alabama, 35235
Pfizer Investigational Site
Birmingham, Alabama, 35242
Pfizer Investigational Site
Boulder, Colorado, 80304
Pfizer Investigational Site
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, 15017
Pfizer Investigational Site
Bristol, Tennessee, 37620
Pfizer Investigational Site
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011
Pfizer Investigational Site
Collierville, Tennessee, 38017
Pfizer Investigational Site
Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80904
Pfizer Investigational Site
Columbia, Maryland, 21045
Pfizer Investigational Site
Columbia, South Carolina, 29204
Pfizer Investigational Site
Cos Cob, Connecticut, 06807
Pfizer Investigational Site
Dallas, Texas, 75230
Pfizer Investigational Site
Dallas, Texas, 75240
Pfizer Investigational Site
Denver, Colorado, 80220
Pfizer Investigational Site
Grapevine, Texas, 76051
Pfizer Investigational Site
Houston, Texas, 77074
Pfizer Investigational Site
Jackson, Mississippi, 39202
Pfizer Investigational Site
Jacksonville, Florida, 32216
Pfizer Investigational Site
Jacksonville, Florida, 32257
Pfizer Investigational Site
Johnson City, Tennessee, 37601
Pfizer Investigational Site
Kingsport, Tennessee, 37660
Pfizer Investigational Site
Lake Jackson, Texas, 77566
Pfizer Investigational Site
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205
Pfizer Investigational Site
Long Beach, California, 90806
Pfizer Investigational Site
New Tazewell, Tennessee, 37825
Pfizer Investigational Site
New Windsor, New York, 12553
Pfizer Investigational Site
New York, New York, 10022-1009
Pfizer Investigational Site
North Charleston, South Carolina, 29406
Pfizer Investigational Site
Oceanside, California, 92056
Pfizer Investigational Site
Omaha, Nebraska, 68134
Pfizer Investigational Site
Phoenix, Arizona, 85023
Pfizer Investigational Site
Pinellas Park, Florida, 33781
Pfizer Investigational Site
Portland, Oregon, 97219
Pfizer Investigational Site
Richmond, Virginia, 23294
Pfizer Investigational Site
Rochester, New York, 14618
Pfizer Investigational Site
Rockville, Maryland, 20852
Pfizer Investigational Site
Sacramento, California, 95823
Pfizer Investigational Site
Sacramento, California, 95825
Pfizer Investigational Site
Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108
Pfizer Investigational Site
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84107
Pfizer Investigational Site
San Angelo, Texas, 76904
Pfizer Investigational Site
San Antonio, Texas, 78217
Pfizer Investigational Site
San Antonio, Texas, 78229
Pfizer Investigational Site
Springfield, Missouri, 65807
Pfizer Investigational Site
St Louis, Missouri, 63141
Pfizer Investigational Site
Weber City, Virginia, 24290
Pfizer Investigational Site
West Palm Beach, Florida, 33409
Pfizer Investigational Site
Wheaton, Maryland, 20902
Pfizer Investigational Site
Wichita, Kansas, 67206
Pfizer Investigational Site
Wichita, Kansas, 67214
Pfizer Investigational Site
Wildomar, California, 92595
Pfizer Investigational Site
Williamsville, New York, 14221
Pfizer Investigational Site
Woodstock, Georgia, 30189
About this study
Official title: A Six Week Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter Comparison Study Of The Analgesic Effectiveness Of Celecoxib 200 Mg BID Compared To Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 Mg QID In Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain
To compare the analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and tramadol in subjects with Chronic Low Back Pain measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain) at Week 6
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Being tested
- celecoxib, tramadol HCL
- Keywords
- Chronic low back pain
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
celecoxibDrug
200 mg capsules BID for 6 weeks
tramadol HCLDrug
50 mg capsules QID for 6 weeks
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| celecoxib | Experimental | Not described Receives: Drug: celecoxib |
| tramadol | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Drug: tramadol HCL |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Treatment Responders Based on the Numerical Rating Scale-Pain (NRS-Pain)
A subject who met the following criteria was considered as a successful responder at Week 6: completed 6 weeks of treatment with study medication and had a 30% improvement from Baseline to Week 6/ET on the NRS-Pain. NRS-Pain scale assessed the severity of a subject's lower back pain on a scale of 0 (No pain) and 10 (Worst possible pain).
Measured: Week 6 or Early Termination (ET)
Secondary outcomes (13)
Change From Baseline in Severity of Chronic Low Back Pain as Measured by NRS-Pain
NRS-Pain scale assessed the severity of a subject's lower back pain on a scale of 0 (No pain) and 10 (Worst possible pain). NRS-Pain scale: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Severity of Low Back Pain as Measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
VAS was a 100 millimeter (mm) scale that subjects used to assess the severity of their lower back pain. Based on the following question, "During the past day, how much back pain did you have?", the subject was instructed to place a vertical line on the VAS to indicate the magnitude of his/her lower back pain. 0 mm = no pain and 100 mm = worst possible pain. VAS: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity
Number of subjects with a graded level of disease activity using the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity 5-point scale (1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, and 5=very poor). Subjects were classified as "Improved" if their assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 1 (Very Good). Subjects were classified as "Worsened" if their assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 5 (Very Poor). Subjects were classified as "No Change" otherwise.
Measured: Week 6/ET
Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity
Number of subjects with a physician's grading of disease activity using the Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity 5-point scale ((1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, and 5=very poor). Subjects were classified as "Improved" if their assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 1 (Very Good). Subjects were classified as "Worsened" if their assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 5 (Very Poor). Subjects were classified as "No Change" otherwise.
Measured: Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score
Each subject assessed his/her own disability due to low back pain using the RMDQ worksheet, which consisted of 24 statements of disability. The RMDQ total score was calculated as the total number of statements that were checked; the RMDQ total scores could have ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability. RMDQ: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory (m-BPI-sf)
m-BPI-sf scale assessed pain severity (0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain), and pain interference of functional activities (0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes) during the 24 hour follow-up period. Subjects indicated: how much pain now; worst pain; average level of pain; how much pain interfered with general activity, mood, walking ability, relations with other people, sleep, normal work (including housework), and enjoyment of life. m-BPI-sf: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale
MOS sleep scale included the following attributes: sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken shortness of breath or headache, quantity of sleep, sleep adequacy, somnolence, Sleep Problem Index I, and Sleep Problem Index II. Score ranged from 0-100, with a higher score indicating more of the scale attribute (e.g., more sleep disturbance, etc.). A negative change indicated subject improvement. MOS sleep scale: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Number of Subjects With Change From Baseline in MOS Optimal Sleep Scale Scores
The Optimal Scale is scaled from 0 or 1 with 1 indicating 7 or 8 hours of sleep per night and 0 otherwise. Number of subjects with change of improvement (0 to 1), no change (1 to 1 or 0 to 0), or worsening (1 to 0) from baseline as indicated by the MOS Optimal sleep scale.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ)
The WLQ included the following: Time Scale, Physical Scale, Output Scale, Mental-Interpersonal Scale, and Index Scale. The scales ranged from 0 (Limited none of the time) to 100 (Limited all of the time). A negative change indicated subject improvement.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication
Number of subjects with an overall response to study medication of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent.
Measured: Weeks 1, 3, and 6/ET
Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Pain Relief Scale)
Number of subjects at varying levels of pain relief (1 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied).
Measured: Week 6/ET
Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Walking and Bending Ability Scale)
Number of subjects at varying levels of pain relief (1 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied).
Measured: Week 6/ET
Chronic Low Back Pain Responders Based on VAS, Patient's Global, and RMDQ
Subjects were successful responders if they had: > = 30% improvement from baseline to final visit in VAS assessment (as identified by 100 millimeter scale); > = 30% improvement from baseline to final visit in Patient's Global assessment (classified as improved if assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if assessment changed to Grade 1, worsened if assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if assessment changed to Grade 5, or no change; and < 20% worsening from baseline to final visit in RMDQ assessment (lower scores indicated greater disability).
Measured: Week 6/ET
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Apr 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2008
- Primary completionSep 2008
- Study completionSep 2008
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 802 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc.
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Pfizer CT.gov Call Center, Study director, Pfizer
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00662558
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- A3191338
- Status last verified
- Jan 2021
- First submitted
- 6 Dec 2007
- Last updated
- 21 Feb 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Feb 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Six Week Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter Comparison Study Of The Analgesic Effectiveness Of Celecoxib 200 Mg BID Compared To Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 Mg QID In Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00662558
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- A3191338
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- Chronic low back pain
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 802 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc.Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- Jan 2008
- Primary completion
- Sep 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2008 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Apr 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 23 Nov 2009
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare the analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and tramadol in subjects with Chronic Low Back Pain measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain) at Week 6
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| celecoxib | Experimental | Drug: celecoxib |
| tramadol | Active comparator | Drug: tramadol HCL |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The subject presents with duration of chronic low back pain of > 3 months requiring regular use of analgesics (> 4 days/week), except for acetaminophen which cannot have been the sole analgesic used
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The subject has chronic low back pain, which is neurologic in etiology (i.e., radiculopathy, neuropathy, myelopathy)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| celecoxib200 mg capsules BID for 6 weeks | Drug | celecoxib |
| tramadol HCL50 mg capsules QID for 6 weeks | Drug | tramadol |
Primary outcome
Treatment Responders Based on the Numerical Rating Scale-Pain (NRS-Pain)
Time frame: Week 6 or Early Termination (ET)
A subject who met the following criteria was considered as a successful responder at Week 6: completed 6 weeks of treatment with study medication and had a 30% improvement from Baseline to Week 6/ET on the NRS-Pain. NRS-Pain scale assessed the severity of a subject's lower back pain on a scale of 0 (No pain) and 10 (Worst possible pain).
13 secondary outcomes
Change From Baseline in Severity of Chronic Low Back Pain as Measured by NRS-Pain
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Severity of Low Back Pain as Measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity
Time frame: Week 6/ET
Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity
Time frame: Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory (m-BPI-sf)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Number of Subjects With Change From Baseline in MOS Optimal Sleep Scale Scores
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Change From Baseline in Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6/ET
Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication
Time frame: Weeks 1, 3, and 6/ET
Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Pain Relief Scale)
Time frame: Week 6/ET
Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Walking and Bending Ability Scale)
Time frame: Week 6/ET
Chronic Low Back Pain Responders Based on VAS, Patient's Global, and RMDQ
Time frame: Week 6/ET
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Feb 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.Link provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Cervical Stabilization With Core Stabilization in Young Adults With Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Spinery Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for Vertebrogenic Chronic Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center study director
Pfizer
60 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing celecoxib and tramadol HCL in people with Low Back Pain, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 60 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Feb 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 60 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 Nov 2009). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Treatment Responders Based on the Numerical Rating Scale-Pain (NRS-Pain) (time frame: Week 6 or Early Termination (ET)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Feb 2021.